This chapter examines one of the most controversial cases in Latin America regarding the link between indigenous rights and neoliberal retrenchment. Bolivia is a central case since there indigenous ...
More

This chapter examines one of the most controversial cases in Latin America regarding the link between indigenous rights and neoliberal retrenchment. Bolivia is a central case since there indigenous leaders have entered into alliances with neoliberal parties, gaining modest indigenous MCPs in return for not opposing structural reforms. Yet these alliances did not last, and many indigenous leaders insist that neoliberalism and indigenous rights are inherently in conflict. The chapter explores what the Bolivian case says about the potential for alliances between MCPs and neoliberalism and their limits.Less

Neoliberalism and the re-emergence of ethnopolitics in Bolivia

Willem Assies

Published in print: 2006-11-23

This chapter examines one of the most controversial cases in Latin America regarding the link between indigenous rights and neoliberal retrenchment. Bolivia is a central case since there indigenous leaders have entered into alliances with neoliberal parties, gaining modest indigenous MCPs in return for not opposing structural reforms. Yet these alliances did not last, and many indigenous leaders insist that neoliberalism and indigenous rights are inherently in conflict. The chapter explores what the Bolivian case says about the potential for alliances between MCPs and neoliberalism and their limits.

In Latin America, neoliberal retrenchment of the state coincided with the increasing adoption of multiculturalist rights for indigenous peoples, and there has been a vibrant debate about the ...
More

In Latin America, neoliberal retrenchment of the state coincided with the increasing adoption of multiculturalist rights for indigenous peoples, and there has been a vibrant debate about the relationship between these two phenomena. Did the rise of multiculturalism facilitate the rise of neoliberalism, or has multiculturalism provided a platform for resistance to it? This chapter discusses the forces giving rise to both MCPs and neoliberal reforms in Latin America, and the relationship between the coalitions involved in both sets of policy changes. It is shown that the relationship between multiculturalism and neoliberalism depends on the relative strength and cohesion of three key collective actors: neoliberal elites, the electoral left, and indigenous peoples' social movements. The strength of these actors varies over time, and across countries, which allows us to identify the conditions which recognition and redistribution are either mutually supportive or in tension in Latin America. The chapter concludes that the mobilization for indigenous rights has often served as an effective vehicle for building new left-wing coalitions that challenge neoliberalism.Less

Multiculturalism versus neoliberalism in Latin America

Donna Lee Van Cott

Published in print: 2006-11-23

In Latin America, neoliberal retrenchment of the state coincided with the increasing adoption of multiculturalist rights for indigenous peoples, and there has been a vibrant debate about the relationship between these two phenomena. Did the rise of multiculturalism facilitate the rise of neoliberalism, or has multiculturalism provided a platform for resistance to it? This chapter discusses the forces giving rise to both MCPs and neoliberal reforms in Latin America, and the relationship between the coalitions involved in both sets of policy changes. It is shown that the relationship between multiculturalism and neoliberalism depends on the relative strength and cohesion of three key collective actors: neoliberal elites, the electoral left, and indigenous peoples' social movements. The strength of these actors varies over time, and across countries, which allows us to identify the conditions which recognition and redistribution are either mutually supportive or in tension in Latin America. The chapter concludes that the mobilization for indigenous rights has often served as an effective vehicle for building new left-wing coalitions that challenge neoliberalism.

The Soviet Union created a unique form of urban modernity, developing institutions of social provisioning for hundreds of millions of people in small and medium-sized industrial cities spread across ...
More

The Soviet Union created a unique form of urban modernity, developing institutions of social provisioning for hundreds of millions of people in small and medium-sized industrial cities spread across a vast territory. After the collapse of socialism, these institutions were profoundly shaken—casualties, in the eyes of many observers, of market-oriented reforms associated with neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus. This book examines reform in Russia beyond the Washington Consensus. It turns attention from the noisy battles over stabilization and privatization during the 1990s to subsequent reforms that grapple with the mundane details of pipes, wires, bureaucratic routines, and budgetary formulas that made up the Soviet social state. Drawing on Michel Foucault's lectures from the late 1970s, the book uses the Russian case to examine neoliberalism as a central form of political rationality in contemporary societies. The book's basic finding—that neoliberal reforms provide a justification for redistribution and social welfare, and may work to preserve the norms and forms of social modernity—lays the groundwork for a critical revision of conventional understandings of these topics.Less

Post-Soviet Social : Neoliberalism, Social Modernity, Biopolitics

Stephen J. Collier

Published in print: 2011-08-28

The Soviet Union created a unique form of urban modernity, developing institutions of social provisioning for hundreds of millions of people in small and medium-sized industrial cities spread across a vast territory. After the collapse of socialism, these institutions were profoundly shaken—casualties, in the eyes of many observers, of market-oriented reforms associated with neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus. This book examines reform in Russia beyond the Washington Consensus. It turns attention from the noisy battles over stabilization and privatization during the 1990s to subsequent reforms that grapple with the mundane details of pipes, wires, bureaucratic routines, and budgetary formulas that made up the Soviet social state. Drawing on Michel Foucault's lectures from the late 1970s, the book uses the Russian case to examine neoliberalism as a central form of political rationality in contemporary societies. The book's basic finding—that neoliberal reforms provide a justification for redistribution and social welfare, and may work to preserve the norms and forms of social modernity—lays the groundwork for a critical revision of conventional understandings of these topics.

Part Three of the book turns to the question of international society and international relations after September 11, starting with a chapter by Richard Falk, who argues that international society ...
More

Part Three of the book turns to the question of international society and international relations after September 11, starting with a chapter by Richard Falk, who argues that international society remains a useful starting point for studying today's globalized world because it is predicated on the dual assertions of international anarchy and a (potentially) global normative order – a duality that provides a fertile breeding ground for different accounts of what the world should look like. The author discusses the changing geopolitical context of globalization and global governance, suggesting that if globalization is to be retained as a label for the current phase of international relations, its net must be cast far more broadly than it has been – since the events of 2001 it needs to be interpreted far less economistically, and more comprehensively. The last part of the chapter considers approaches to global governance, international society, and world society given this altered understanding of ‘globalization’. The author identifies five overlapping accounts of globalization that provide alternative and competing pictures of the future of global governance and international society: corporate globalization, which refers to the growth of transnational business and the forging of common interests and values based on neoliberal economics; civic globalization, which in many ways is a civil society response to the corporate variety and has manifested itself in a number of transnational anti‐globalization movements, but has now moved beyond straightforward opposition towards the articulation of new global political agendas; imperial globalization, which is a US‐led form of globalization that seeks not the creation of a genuinely multinational neoliberal global economy but rather the extension of American power and the satisfaction of US interests narrowly conceived; apocalyptic globalization, the variant promoted by Osama Bin Laden and his followers and aims to overthrow the society of states and replace it with an Islamic world state; and regional globalization, in which a number of regions around the world are developing their own subsystems as a way of moderating pressures created by the global flow of capital. The author argues that none of these forms of globalization is likely to predominate completely, but that the relationship between them is likely to shape the nature of global governance for the foreseeable future.Less

(Re)Imagining the Governance of Globalization

Richard Falk

Published in print: 2004-08-01

Part Three of the book turns to the question of international society and international relations after September 11, starting with a chapter by Richard Falk, who argues that international society remains a useful starting point for studying today's globalized world because it is predicated on the dual assertions of international anarchy and a (potentially) global normative order – a duality that provides a fertile breeding ground for different accounts of what the world should look like. The author discusses the changing geopolitical context of globalization and global governance, suggesting that if globalization is to be retained as a label for the current phase of international relations, its net must be cast far more broadly than it has been – since the events of 2001 it needs to be interpreted far less economistically, and more comprehensively. The last part of the chapter considers approaches to global governance, international society, and world society given this altered understanding of ‘globalization’. The author identifies five overlapping accounts of globalization that provide alternative and competing pictures of the future of global governance and international society: corporate globalization, which refers to the growth of transnational business and the forging of common interests and values based on neoliberal economics; civic globalization, which in many ways is a civil society response to the corporate variety and has manifested itself in a number of transnational anti‐globalization movements, but has now moved beyond straightforward opposition towards the articulation of new global political agendas; imperial globalization, which is a US‐led form of globalization that seeks not the creation of a genuinely multinational neoliberal global economy but rather the extension of American power and the satisfaction of US interests narrowly conceived; apocalyptic globalization, the variant promoted by Osama Bin Laden and his followers and aims to overthrow the society of states and replace it with an Islamic world state; and regional globalization, in which a number of regions around the world are developing their own subsystems as a way of moderating pressures created by the global flow of capital. The author argues that none of these forms of globalization is likely to predominate completely, but that the relationship between them is likely to shape the nature of global governance for the foreseeable future.

Part Two of the book begins with a discussion of realist and English School of International Relations approaches to writing international history, in which the author argues that the appreciation of ...
More

Part Two of the book begins with a discussion of realist and English School of International Relations approaches to writing international history, in which the author argues that the appreciation of history that underpinned early English School thinking was reminiscent of that which also framed ‘traditional classical’ realist approaches to the subject. The author refutes D. C. Copeland's (2003) structuralist critique of the English School and argues that the School's early thinkers may provide a teleological account of agent‐led historical change that could enable traditional realists to regain ground lost to the structuralists in the past few decades. Focusing on the conceptions of history of two distinguished members of the English School, E. H. Carr and Herbert Butterfield (although their views are in some respects diametrically opposed), he argues that both implicitly accepted different renditions of a teleological view of history. He advances a case for treating human actions as directed to the agent's – both individual and collective – goals and purposes, an idea that scientific empiricism would be obliged to reject but which may unite the English School and traditional political realism. In addition, he suggests that the mix of English School and political realism provided by Carr and Butterfield offers an understanding of history that can challenge dominant neorealist and neoliberal accounts in two principal ways: first, in that it offers an account of history that focuses on the intentional actions of actors, and second, because it provides a convincing method for identifying the causes of historical change by focusing on the reasons for change.Less

Traditional Political Realism and the Writing of History

Roger D. Spegele

Published in print: 2004-08-01

Part Two of the book begins with a discussion of realist and English School of International Relations approaches to writing international history, in which the author argues that the appreciation of history that underpinned early English School thinking was reminiscent of that which also framed ‘traditional classical’ realist approaches to the subject. The author refutes D. C. Copeland's (2003) structuralist critique of the English School and argues that the School's early thinkers may provide a teleological account of agent‐led historical change that could enable traditional realists to regain ground lost to the structuralists in the past few decades. Focusing on the conceptions of history of two distinguished members of the English School, E. H. Carr and Herbert Butterfield (although their views are in some respects diametrically opposed), he argues that both implicitly accepted different renditions of a teleological view of history. He advances a case for treating human actions as directed to the agent's – both individual and collective – goals and purposes, an idea that scientific empiricism would be obliged to reject but which may unite the English School and traditional political realism. In addition, he suggests that the mix of English School and political realism provided by Carr and Butterfield offers an understanding of history that can challenge dominant neorealist and neoliberal accounts in two principal ways: first, in that it offers an account of history that focuses on the intentional actions of actors, and second, because it provides a convincing method for identifying the causes of historical change by focusing on the reasons for change.

Amongst intellectuals and activists, neoliberalism has become a potent signifier for the kind of free-market thinking that has dominated politics for the past three decades. Forever associated with ...
More

Amongst intellectuals and activists, neoliberalism has become a potent signifier for the kind of free-market thinking that has dominated politics for the past three decades. Forever associated with the conviction politics of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the free-market project has since become synonymous with the ‘Washington Consensus’ on international development policy and the phenomenon of corporate globalization, where it has come to mean privatization, deregulation, and the opening up of new markets. But beyond its utility as a protest slogan as a shorthand signifier for the political-economic Zeitgeist, what do we know about where neoliberalism came from and how it spread? Who are the neoliberals, and why do they studiously avoid the label? This book presents a radical critique of the free-market project, from its origins in the first half of the 20th century through to its near-death experience in the recent global economic crisis, from the utopian dreams of Friedrich von Hayek, through the dogmatic theories of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, to the hope and hubris of Obamanomics. The book traces how neoliberalism went from crank science to common sense in the period between the Great Depression and the age of Obama. It is an exploration of the antisocial life of the free-market project, examined in its cradles of invention and in its zones of extension and contestation. In the process, the book elaborates (and puts to work) an understanding of neoliberalism as an adaptive, unevenly developed regulatory project.Less

Constructions of Neoliberal Reason

Jamie Peck

Published in print: 2010-10-28

Amongst intellectuals and activists, neoliberalism has become a potent signifier for the kind of free-market thinking that has dominated politics for the past three decades. Forever associated with the conviction politics of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the free-market project has since become synonymous with the ‘Washington Consensus’ on international development policy and the phenomenon of corporate globalization, where it has come to mean privatization, deregulation, and the opening up of new markets. But beyond its utility as a protest slogan as a shorthand signifier for the political-economic Zeitgeist, what do we know about where neoliberalism came from and how it spread? Who are the neoliberals, and why do they studiously avoid the label? This book presents a radical critique of the free-market project, from its origins in the first half of the 20th century through to its near-death experience in the recent global economic crisis, from the utopian dreams of Friedrich von Hayek, through the dogmatic theories of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, to the hope and hubris of Obamanomics. The book traces how neoliberalism went from crank science to common sense in the period between the Great Depression and the age of Obama. It is an exploration of the antisocial life of the free-market project, examined in its cradles of invention and in its zones of extension and contestation. In the process, the book elaborates (and puts to work) an understanding of neoliberalism as an adaptive, unevenly developed regulatory project.

Argues that the US promotes a ‘low‐intensity democracy’, i.e. a formal electoral democracy that is not conducive to real economic progress for the majority, and is designed to facilitate the ...
More

Argues that the US promotes a ‘low‐intensity democracy’, i.e. a formal electoral democracy that is not conducive to real economic progress for the majority, and is designed to facilitate the expansion of the neoliberal economic globalization. The paradox is that while neoliberal globalization weakens labour and other dissenting social forces, it also stimulates the mobilization of these social forces into active resistance. This can ultimately destabilize the global and national orders.Less

Barry K. Gills

Published in print: 2000-08-31

Argues that the US promotes a ‘low‐intensity democracy’, i.e. a formal electoral democracy that is not conducive to real economic progress for the majority, and is designed to facilitate the expansion of the neoliberal economic globalization. The paradox is that while neoliberal globalization weakens labour and other dissenting social forces, it also stimulates the mobilization of these social forces into active resistance. This can ultimately destabilize the global and national orders.

Manufacturing Possibilities examines adjustment dynamics in the steel, automobile and machinery industries in Germany, the U.S., and Japan since World War II. Using detailed historical ...
More

Manufacturing Possibilities examines adjustment dynamics in the steel, automobile and machinery industries in Germany, the U.S., and Japan since World War II. Using detailed historical and interview based contemporary analysis, the book shows that as national industrial actors in each sector try to compete in global markets, they recompose firm and industry boundaries, producer strategies, stakeholder interests and governance mechanisms at all levels of their political economies. Theoretically, the book marks a departure from both neoliberal economic and historical institutionalist perspectives on change in advanced political economies. It characterizes industrial change as a creative, bottom up, process driven by reflective social actors. The alternative view consists of two distinctive claims. The first is that action is social, reflective and ultimately creative. When their interactive habits are disrupted, industrial actors seek to repair their relations by reconceiving them. Such imaginative interaction redefines interest and causes unforeseen possibilities for action to emerge, enabling actors to trump existing rules and constraints. Second, industrial change driven by creative action is recompositional. In the social process of reflection, actors rearrange, modify, reconceive and reposition inherited organizational forms and governance mechanisms as they experiment with solutions to the challenges that they face. Continuity in relations is interwoven with continuous reform and change. Most remarkably, creativity in the recomposition process makes the introduction of entirely new practices and relations possible. Ultimately, the message of Manufacturing Possibilities is that social study of change in advanced political economies should devote itself to the discovery of possibility. Preoccupation with constraint and failure to appreciate the capaciousness of reflective social action has led much of contemporary debate to misrecognize the dynamics of change. As a result, discussion of the range of adjustment possibilities has been unnecessarily limited.Less

Manufacturing Possibilities : Creative Action and Industrial Recomposition in the United States, Germany, and Japan

Gary Herrigel

Published in print: 2010-06-23

Manufacturing Possibilities examines adjustment dynamics in the steel, automobile and machinery industries in Germany, the U.S., and Japan since World War II. Using detailed historical and interview based contemporary analysis, the book shows that as national industrial actors in each sector try to compete in global markets, they recompose firm and industry boundaries, producer strategies, stakeholder interests and governance mechanisms at all levels of their political economies. Theoretically, the book marks a departure from both neoliberal economic and historical institutionalist perspectives on change in advanced political economies. It characterizes industrial change as a creative, bottom up, process driven by reflective social actors. The alternative view consists of two distinctive claims. The first is that action is social, reflective and ultimately creative. When their interactive habits are disrupted, industrial actors seek to repair their relations by reconceiving them. Such imaginative interaction redefines interest and causes unforeseen possibilities for action to emerge, enabling actors to trump existing rules and constraints. Second, industrial change driven by creative action is recompositional. In the social process of reflection, actors rearrange, modify, reconceive and reposition inherited organizational forms and governance mechanisms as they experiment with solutions to the challenges that they face. Continuity in relations is interwoven with continuous reform and change. Most remarkably, creativity in the recomposition process makes the introduction of entirely new practices and relations possible. Ultimately, the message of Manufacturing Possibilities is that social study of change in advanced political economies should devote itself to the discovery of possibility. Preoccupation with constraint and failure to appreciate the capaciousness of reflective social action has led much of contemporary debate to misrecognize the dynamics of change. As a result, discussion of the range of adjustment possibilities has been unnecessarily limited.

In the last third of the twentieth century, contrary to what modernity predicted, ethnic and cultural difference had a high salience, and contemporary societies in Europe and North America felt ...
More

In the last third of the twentieth century, contrary to what modernity predicted, ethnic and cultural difference had a high salience, and contemporary societies in Europe and North America felt compelled to recognize this and implement policies of multiculturalism to cope with the demands that emanated from it. The reasons for this shift to the recognition of difference are complex, but it may be partly ascribed to the vast social, economic, and technological changes associated with post‐industrial economies under conditions of neoliberalism and globalization. In countries of immigration, transnationalism, too, enhanced the space of ethnic and cultural pluralism. Yet, pluralism may take many forms, and it is unclear whether the difference that will prevail in contemporary post‐modern societies will take the form of an essentialist version of multiculturalism, or some kind of ‘hybridity’.Less

Pluralism and the Postmodern Condition

R. D. Grillo

Published in print: 1998-07-23

In the last third of the twentieth century, contrary to what modernity predicted, ethnic and cultural difference had a high salience, and contemporary societies in Europe and North America felt compelled to recognize this and implement policies of multiculturalism to cope with the demands that emanated from it. The reasons for this shift to the recognition of difference are complex, but it may be partly ascribed to the vast social, economic, and technological changes associated with post‐industrial economies under conditions of neoliberalism and globalization. In countries of immigration, transnationalism, too, enhanced the space of ethnic and cultural pluralism. Yet, pluralism may take many forms, and it is unclear whether the difference that will prevail in contemporary post‐modern societies will take the form of an essentialist version of multiculturalism, or some kind of ‘hybridity’.

The EU's founding Treaties have been characterized by political contestation along two dimensions: a centre‐periphery dimension in which centralization to Brussels is opposed to national sovereignty, ...
More

The EU's founding Treaties have been characterized by political contestation along two dimensions: a centre‐periphery dimension in which centralization to Brussels is opposed to national sovereignty, and a left‐right dimension pitting a center‐right project of market liberalization against a center‐left project of ‘regulated capitalism’. From the Treaty of Rome through the Maastricht Treaty, the fundamental thrust of the treaties has been neoliberal, focusing on the creation of a unified European marketplace, while side agreements have secured some elements of the regulated capitalism project. In this context, the Treaty of Amsterdam represents an outlier: a Treaty that addresses the central concerns of the regulated capitalism model (e.g. employment, social policy, and the environment), but does so primarily through new regulatory instruments and comparison of best practices rather than binding EU regulations. For good or ill, this ‘Blairite Treaty’ reflects the ‘Third Way’ governing philosophy of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.Less

A Blairite Treaty: Neo‐Liberalism and Regulated Capitalism in the Treaty of Amsterdam

Mark A. Pollack

Published in print: 2000-03-16

The EU's founding Treaties have been characterized by political contestation along two dimensions: a centre‐periphery dimension in which centralization to Brussels is opposed to national sovereignty, and a left‐right dimension pitting a center‐right project of market liberalization against a center‐left project of ‘regulated capitalism’. From the Treaty of Rome through the Maastricht Treaty, the fundamental thrust of the treaties has been neoliberal, focusing on the creation of a unified European marketplace, while side agreements have secured some elements of the regulated capitalism project. In this context, the Treaty of Amsterdam represents an outlier: a Treaty that addresses the central concerns of the regulated capitalism model (e.g. employment, social policy, and the environment), but does so primarily through new regulatory instruments and comparison of best practices rather than binding EU regulations. For good or ill, this ‘Blairite Treaty’ reflects the ‘Third Way’ governing philosophy of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.